Stella Creasy: It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Mr Howarth. I am looking forward to this debate because it is something all of us across the House feel concerned about. I recognise that we are debating the Finance Bill. I reassure you that the amendments and the majority of what I will talk about today are about taxation and, in particular, the requirements of the legislation. I just want briefly to set out how that fits into the context of the concerns that are shared across the House about private finance and the cost to the public sector of borrowing to be able to build the infrastructure that we all know we need.
To be clear, Governments of all colours have used private finance and continue to do so. The private finance initiative and private finance 2 schemes are little different from each other. It is recognised that questions about the companies involved and the role of taxation in the decision to use PFI or PF2 to fund public infrastructure are questions for all of us, because we see in our constituencies the problems that are caused.
I note that the constituency of the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar now has repayments of £169 million as a result of private finance. The constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle, the shadow Minister, has £423 million-worth of repayments required under private finance contracts. I would describe private finance as the hire purchase of the public sector—indeed the legal loan sharks of the public sector— because the  companies offer credit to the public sector, but at a high cost. In particular, the cost of the credit—the taxation that will come from the companies involved—is part of the decision to go with them. That is specifically part of the Green Book calculations. I am looking forward to the Minister telling us what has happened to those Green Book calculations, which were supposedly withdrawn in 2013 but I understand are still being used by Departments for private finance deals, to understand how tax plays a part in the decision to use private finance companies. The idea is that this form of credit may be more expensive but that the companies will repay us in taxation in the UK. That forms part of the decision to use them. The widespread evidence now is that those companies are not paying UK taxes, and that they are benefiting from changes in our tax regime over the past 20 or 30 years. That should trouble all of us because we are not getting the value for money that the deals were supposed to be.
One of my concerns that I hope the Minister will address is that PF2 also pays little regard to the question of where the companies are situated and how much tax they pay. I have therefore tabled two amendments—in fact, three; one is about defining private finance companies—to understand what kind of deal we are getting from those companies and how we as taxpayers and those who represent taxpayers can get a better deal for the British public.
For the avoidance of doubt, the debate is not about not using private finance. One day, I hope that we will have another debate—I am sure the Minister will look forward to it as much as he is looking forward to this one—about the alternatives to private finance. There is a role for private finance, but the question is, if we are getting a bad deal and if the companies are not honouring the obligations that we as taxpayers assigned to them, what can we do about it?
Clearly, the PFI companies are making huge profit. Research from the Centre for Health and the Public Interest shows that over the next five years almost £1 billion in taxpayer funds will go to PFI companies in the form of pre-tax profits. That is 22% of the extra £4.5 billion given to the Department of Health alone.
In my constituency I see at first hand the impact of this. Whipps Cross University Hospital is technically in the constituency next door, but serves my local community—it is part of Barts, which has the biggest PFI contract in the country: £1 billion-worth of build, £7 billion to be repaid. The hospital is paying back £150 million a year in PFI charges, more than 50% of which is interest alone on the loan. The hospital downgraded the nurses’ post to try to save money, and so found that many nurses left. It therefore faced a higher agency bill.
It is clear that PFI and the cost of those loans drives problems. It is also clear that those companies make what I would term excessive profits. That is where new clause 1 begins to try to offer us some answers. If the companies make excessive profits, that is not part of the contract that we signed with them. The National Audit Office has been incredibly critical of how taxation played a role in decisions about private finance companies, but that has not been realised.
Also, not that many companies are involved, yet the tax returns are huge. Just eight companies own or appear to have equity stakes in 92% of all the PFI contracts in the NHS. Innisfree manages Barts, which is  my local hospital, and it has just 25 staff but stands to make £18 billion over the coming years. It might be thought, therefore, that companies of that size and stature would pay a substantial amount of tax—I see that the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar can predict where I am going with this; sadly, it does not appear to be the case.
Indeed, many of the companies seem to report little or no tax in the UK. One of the simple reasons for that is that many of them are not registered in the UK. That is crucial because the provisions in the Bill to give those companies a relief on paying tax on the interest that they get from shareholder debt are predicated on the idea that they are UK companies. That is the starting point for amendments 5 and 6. The Bill will bring in a cap on the amount of relief that companies can claim against interest. However, there is a public sector exemption, for public sector infrastructure companies, and it will substantially benefit the companies in question.
Having been a Member of this House for seven years, I have always assumed that when such a provision is introduced we will be able to debate its merits. I note that the restrictions in relation to the measure mean that we cannot stop it, or ask whether we are being wise and whether, given that we know the companies do not necessarily pay the tax it was assumed they would in the UK, we are getting their tax situation right. We cannot stop the measure, but we can certainly ask just how much the companies are going to benefit from it.
Amendments 5 and 6 are intended to enable taxpayers to understand how much the companies will benefit from the exemption, and how much extra money they will be able to write off against their tax bill, thus paying little tax in the future. It matters very much to the companies, because most are heavily indebted to their shareholders. They use a model involving 80% to 90% senior debt; the rest is equity loans in terms of the products that they offer. PF2 will change that very little. The amount of debt that they carry, and therefore the amount of interest that they can trade off, which the measure will allow them to do, will be relevant to their ability to give returns to their shareholders.
It is clear that those companies give their shareholders substantial returns, and will be able to fund that through such tax relief. Indeed, the shareholders’ returns are 28% on their sales—more than double the 12% to 15% that was predicted in the business cases. Between 2000 and 2016 the total value of sales of shares in PFI companies was £17 billion. It is notable that in 2016 100% of equity transactions involving those companies were to offshore infrastructure funds in Jersey, Guernsey and Luxembourg. That is based on a sample of 334 projects.
Those companies are going to get a substantial tax relief from the exemption. Yet they do not pay tax in the UK—or, certainly, there is a lot of evidence that they do not. It is an exemption that will enable them to continue to justify paying little or no tax; they will be able to write off the interest on their loans and projects against it. Yet taxpayers are not benefiting from the tax that they said they would pay.
New clause 1 goes to the heart of that question. Those companies signed up for public sector contracts, with particular rates of tax at the time they were finalised. Yet, as we know, corporation tax has varied substantially over the past decade. The debate is not about what the right level of corporation tax is; it is about a simple  principle. If a company has signed up to pay a certain rate of tax, and the tax rate changes, it clearly benefits from that. We signed up to the deals for taxpayers, however, on the basis that they would pay a certain rate of tax. That tax rate will now change. New clause 1, again, asks just how much the companies are benefiting from the changes.
I know that the Minister will tell me that there are various anti-discriminatory clauses in the PFI and indeed the PF2 contracts. I agree with him. Therefore, how we might start to reclaim some of that excessive profit is a tricky question, but there is a strong case that, if a company has signed up in good faith to a particular rate of tax, surely that is the rate of tax that it should pay. That is written into the contract, it is part of the business case in the Green Book that is made on these sorts of deals. We as taxpayers have an expectation. Indeed, I would expect the Minister to have a series of sums reflecting the amount of money that would be paid back that he would write off against the large sums that I talked about. However, given that the corporation tax situation has moved from some of these companies nominally paying 28% to their paying 19% or less, that is clearly a substantial discount on what they were expected to pay. New clause 1 asks us to do what, frankly, at the moment we do not do as a country—understand what the difference is between what we expected to get in from tax from these companies and what we will get in.
It is always troubling to me that the Treasury does not seem to have a central database either of how much we were paying to take on these loans—particularly the rates of return, which we know are substantially higher than the rate of borrowing on the public sector—or of the taxation these companies are paying back versus what they were expected to pay back. New clause 1 would get to the heart of that matter and it sits alongside amendments 5 and 6 in trying to understand where these companies are making excessive profits from the public sector.
I am sure that the Minister will tell me that this is a dreadful attack on the private sector and that we should not be saying that these companies are ripping the British public off and that they are legal loan sharks. However, I ask him: if he will not accept the amendments, will he commit to gathering the data about how much these companies have paid in tax, how much these have made to the value-for-money case for these businesses, and therefore how our communities will be able to pay back the sums involved?
I am sure that the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar would love to have £169 million to invest in his local community; there are many worthy causes that I am sure he would support. I am sure that the hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden would be interested in the £170 million that I believe Stevenage, near his constituency, will have to pay out to PFI companies. That money could be invested in the public infrastructure that we so desperately need.
I am sure that all of us would agree that we expect these companies to pay their tax, as they signed up to in these contracts, yet it is clear that they do not. So if the Minister is not prepared to accept these incredibly reasonable amendments in this environment, I hope  that he will set out precisely what he is going to do to get our tax money back. All of us and all of our constituents need and deserve nothing less.

Mel Stride: With great respect to the hon. Gentleman, I think that is probably a little out of scope of the issues being dealt with in the Bill. I make the point that his party is committed to bringing a lot of these back in, as it has described. That is a fine idea in principle, but it will cost a huge amount of money and there has been no suggestion from his party as to how it would be raised, what taxes will have to be raised as a consequence, or what additional borrowing will have to occur in order to do that.
To return to the hon. Lady’s point, the Green Book methodology as it applies to the PFI is not directly concerned with the tax treatment under discussion, but I am very happy to write to her about that. Her other point was, in effect, whether chapter 8 applies to an overseas company? She made constant reference to the idea that a lot of these organisations were foreign-based in one form or another. I can give her some reassurance on that, because chapter 8—it applies the particular treatment to which she objects in respect of PFIs—applies to UK companies, which still typically include the company that holds the PFI contract. It does not apply to overseas companies or investors.
I welcome the opportunity to debate amendment 28, tabled by Opposition Members. It proposes a review within 15 months of Royal Assent of the effect of the  provisions contained in chapter 8 of the schedule in relation to the sectors listed in the amendment. As I have mentioned, chapter 8 introduces the public infrastructure rules. With those rules, providers of public infrastructure may find that they are disproportionately impacted by the rules as the nature of the businesses require substantial investment, and their commercial characteristics often lead to such finance being provided in the form of debt.
Legislating for a review of the rules in 15 months is unnecessary. As I have described, the Government have already undertaken extensive work and consultation on this area over the past 18 months. We will continue to monitor the impact of the legislation and officials will continue to meet key stakeholders impacted by the rules in the chapter.
As I said at the outset, I welcome this debate. The Government have already looked closely at the impact that the rules will have on companies with PFI contracts, and indeed on all companies within the scope of the rules. The provisions made in the legislation strike the correct balance between being robust, while not disproportionately impacting on PFI investors, and not damaging the reputation of the UK as a place to do business. I therefore invite Opposition Members not to press amendments 5, 6 and 28 and new clause 1 to a Division.
Schedule 5 introduces new rules that will restrict the ability of businesses to reduce their taxable profits through excessive UK interest expense. The rules are consistent with the UK’s wider policy to align the location of taxable profits with the location of economic activity and better reflect the global reality of modern business. Introducing the rules ensures that the UK upholds its commitment to timely and effective implementation of the OECD’s recommendations to make sure multinational corporations pay tax reflective of the business they carry out in this country. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.

Peter Dowd: I do not think that the Minister has recognised the paradigm shift in the public’s view of PFI. In fact, Mr Howarth, as you know, in the area where we live there is a big debate at the moment about a significant infrastructure project, which is creating all sorts of tensions because of the implications of the way it is constructed. I am not criticising anybody, because all political parties—certainly the two main parties—have dipped their fingers, possibly even up to their shoulders, into PFI, so it is not a question of pointing a finger at anyone.
My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow eloquently and forensically identified some of the issues, and I thank her for that. However, things are moving on and we have to keep up with the tone outside in the country. People are becoming increasingly suspicious of PFI contracts. I know that we are not discussing the whole question of PFI. I completely accept that, but there is a question about the generality of the measure, to contextualise it. What we have here in the Bill is one of the most complex measures ever legislated for in Britain. Schedule 5 alone stretches to 157 pages of dense text, which is far longer than the entire length of the majority of Bills that we debate in Parliament, and I daresay is longer than the entire tax code of some jurisdictions. We have to take that into account; that is the context we are working in.
The length, of course, relates to the complexity of what the measure tries to achieve, but sometimes the complexity and length do not improve the operation of law. The excessive length of the existing tax code is well known. In reality we have in PFI, as identified in amendment 28, a range of services in the public sector: water, sewerage, gas and electricity, telecoms, railway facilities, roads, health facilities—referred to earlier—educational facilities, court and prison facilities, and waste processing facilities. We have moved beyond dealing with this as just a technical issue—it is a wider issue—but for today’s purposes we must identify how much those projects cost the taxpayer and how much of our tax take they denude us of.
The UK’s engagement in the OECD’s base erosion and profit sharing project, which the Minister referred to, will be welcome if it really does lead to the end of practices that have denuded Exchequers here and abroad of much needed receipts, but many people are not convinced about that. They genuinely are not convinced that PFI projects, which have been in operation for the best part of a quarter of a century, have given us the best value for money. There are deep concerns about the Exchequer being denuded of tax, especially when many of these projects, if not all of them, have the copper-bottomed guarantee of the British state. They are hardly the riskiest ventures in the world. In fact, they are probably some of the safest. We have to take that into account. There has been a shift in people’s attitude to PFI. We must recognise that things have moved on.
We certainly do not oppose the overall aim of reducing companies’ ability to shift profits through artificial interest charge arrangements—no one is suggesting that—but as I and others have said, there is a concern that those deeply complex measures and the many loopholes have already found their way into the minds of tax advisers and into the accounting practices of many corporations. I said to the Minister only the other day that we are here to guard the guards, and I know that he recognises that we are perfectly entitled to ask many questions.
The debate about PFI—the concept, the philosophy, the notion—will take place elsewhere. The shadow Chancellor mentioned it in his party conference speech. We will take the issue out to the public, but given the context we want to delve down, and one of the only ways that the Opposition have to delve down is to ask HMRC to report on the implications. Amendment 28 would do that.

Peter Dowd: No doubt all hon. Members support these measures, which will see more people, particularly children and young people, having the opportunity to access touring museum and gallery exhibitions and expand their educational horizons.
The United Kingdom leads the way with its diverse range of museums and galleries. It is estimated that there are 2,500 museums and galleries in the UK, which collectively receive more than 100 million visits a year. That is quite substantial. As you will know, Mr Howarth, some of the finest museums and galleries in the country are in our own city region: the Walker Art Gallery, the Atkinson, the Lady Lever, the Merseyside Maritime Museum, the World Museum, the International Slavery Museum, the Beatles museum—the list goes on.
The huge impact the sector has on the economy cannot be discounted. According to the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, the culture sector accounts for 10% of GDP. Broadly speaking, £1 in every £1,000 in the UK economy is directly related to the museum and gallery sector, and there is a spend of more than £650 million a year.
The funding of museum and gallery exhibitions varies between national museums and the smaller independent museums. On average, national museums generate almost half of their own income, while the rest comes from the Government. Small independent museums are often fully funded by private donations, ticket sales and sponsorship. Most museums and gallery exhibitions are limited to large city centres, with a sizeable proportion in the capital. Domestically touring exhibitions allow the opportunity for people who would not otherwise have access to museums and galleries to see, visit and be in contact with them. We are fully behind the measures in schedule 6, which seek to support smaller companies that produce touring museum and gallery exhibitions and struggle to break even.
We welcome the prohibition in the schedule of exhibitions that are designed to advertise goods and services or include competitions, items for sale, live display of animals or plants and so on. After all, those things are not defined as either a museum or a gallery exhibition. However, we are concerned that this relief, like many tax reliefs, will be taken advantage of by predominantly larger and already established companies for the purposes of sponsoring a touring museum exhibition or gallery show to minimise a tax bill. That in turn will undermine the effectiveness of the relief.
Amendment 29 calls for the Government to publish a review of the effectiveness of the measure after its implementation, so that we can ascertain its impact on the sector, and particularly smaller and independent companies.
There are a number of questions. Why does the relief apply only to the cost of developing temporary or touring exhibitions? The Government initially indicated that they would consult on the design over the summer. You referred to consultation. Perhaps you could say a little bit more about that.

Mel Stride: Quite right, Mr Howarth. I think we should just agree that I will see you at Glastonbury next year. Sorry—I will see the hon. Gentleman there; I might see you there as well, Mr Howarth.
On the specific point the hon. Gentleman raised about ensuring that relief is not abused, anti-avoidance rules are clearly critical to the long-term success and  stability of the museums and galleries exhibition tax relief. The Government will include rules similar to those applied under the film tax relief to prevent artificial inflation claims. In addition, there will be a general anti-avoidance rule, based on the general anti-abuse rule, denying relief where there are any tax avoidance arrangements relating to the production. During the consultation, respondents generally said that the strategy appeared robust and did not identify any additional opportunities for abuse. Of course, as I have said previously, HMRC will continue to monitor these important matters. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Gentleman not press his amendment.

Anneliese Dodds: As hon. Members will be aware, the patent box system in the UK was introduced following the Labour Government’s 2009 Budget, which committed to,
“consider the evidence for changes to the way the tax system encourages innovative activity and the relative attractiveness to global firms as they make decisions on where to locate their research and development and other innovation activities.”
As a result of that commitment, the patent box was created, intended to cover income from patents dating from April 2013. In 2010, before it came into practice, it was altered by the coalition Government.
The patent box rules reduced the corporation tax that accrues to profits from the development and exploitation of patents and some other forms of intellectual property. Our regime was identified during the OECD BEPS  process, which we have already referred to this morning, as harmful and open to abuse. It was also identified as potentially harmful by the EU’s code of conduct group in 2013. It is therefore positive to see attempts to tighten the regime, following other measures that were discussed last year.
We have already seen a shift to the nexus basis for identifying the fraction of profits that will be allowed in a claim through the patent box as derived from R and D activities. That brings us in line with international best practice. It is good to see other countries adopting that approach as well. In this context, the British tax regime undoubtedly will have some impact on business investment decisions, but comparative evidence suggests that other factors, not least infrastructure and the availability of highly skilled researchers, technologists and other workers, are most significant to our overall competitiveness.
These provisions would ensure that companies that undertake research and development as part of cost-sharing arrangements are neither penalised nor advantaged, so in effect the provisions are designed be more neutral as regards group structure. Having said that, the draft legislation is highly complex. Furthermore, the whole basis for the provisions is the approach agreed by the OECD that R and D spending is a proxy for R and D effort. We suggest that those provisions should be reviewed, because we think that more work is needed to ensure that those two concepts are aligned to prevent potential abuses. The provisions have put us under the international spotlight, so it is important that, as we continue to try to preserve and enhance research and development effort in the UK, we also live up to our international obligations. That is why we think that a review would be appropriate.